A right royal spat

NAS: speaking the truth to power for 150 years

Editorial

For many years, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)1 has been at the forefront in responding to challenges to the teaching of evolution, working with other national and state organizations with similar objectives (summarized in Alberts and Labov, 2004 ; Labov, 2005 ). The NAS has established a website2 that makes freely available its three current publications on evolution education (NAS, 1998 , 1999 , 2004 ; National Research Council, 1996 ). Other publications about evolution (e.g., Hazen, 2005 ; Ayala, 2007 ), a variety of position papers, and links to evolution resources from other organizations comprise the balance of the site. One of these publications, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (NAS, 1999 ), has been widely used by people in many communities and especially by legal scholars and practitioners. It has been a prominent resource for major court cases, including Selman v. Cobb County Board of Education and Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education. The first edition (NAS, 1984 ) was originally prepared as an amicus brief for the United States Supreme Court.3 These booklets were important because they provided courts, educators, policy makers, and the public with a clear synopsis of the kinds of evidence that support both the fact and the theory of evolution, and they offered succinct explanations of the processes and nature of science (Ayala, 2008 ). The second edition of Science and Creationism was released just before the ascent of the intelligent design creationism movement as a prominent voice in the “controversies” about evolution, and this publication devotes only two paragraphs to that challenge. Thus, the leaders of the NAS decided that an update to this booklet that addresses these more recent challenges was both timely and necessary. The new edition has been renamed Science, Evolution, and Creationism (SE&C) (Figure 1). Given the increasing importance of an understanding of evolution for prevention and treatment of disease, this new booklet has been developed jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (IOM).4 As with the two earlier editions, SE&C (NAS and IOM, 2008 ) was authored by a committee of prominent scientists, many of whom are members of the NAS or IOM. And, this committee includes two teacher leaders, both of whom have served as president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. Figure 1. Cover of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. However, unlike its predecessors, this new edition was shaped to a large extent by a careful program of audience research. This research was initiated to bring about a better understanding of the frame of reference that the intended audiences bring to this issue. The committee decided early in the revision process that its goal was to successfully inform opinion leaders and influentials who could then use this information to help reframe5 discussions about the evolution “controversy.” By presenting authoritative scientific information in ways that address the questions and concerns of those who are unsure about teaching evolution in science classrooms, the authoring committee would provide opinion leaders and influentials (scientists, business leaders, clergy, teachers, members of school boards, policy makers, judges, lawyers, and others) with the tools needed to change the understanding and decisions of other people who comprise the “wobbly middle.” They defined the wobbly middle as the large percentage of citizens that various national polls have shown to be undecided about whether or not evolution, creationism, or some combination should be taught in public school science classrooms.

For more than four decades, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) has operated as an independent nonprofit organization with a mission of providing guiding documents on matters of health and biomedical research, many of which are commissioned by the government. The IOM--part of the 151-year-old National Academy of Sciences--issues reports on a wide range of topics, from salt consumption to clinical trial data sharing, and convenes workshops at its headquarters in Washington, DC.The institute counts almost 2,000 experts among its members, including Victor Dzau. On 1 July, Dzau will replace health policy expert Harvey Fineberg as president of the IOM for a six-year term. A cardiologist and researcher by training, Dzau currently serves as chancellor for health affairs at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. During his time at Duke, he has broadened the reach of the institution by helping to launch the Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, the Duke Global Health Institute and the International Partnership for Innovative Healthcare Delivery. Roxanne Khamsi spoke with Dzau about his vision for the IOM. The conversation has been edited for clarity.

On July 3, 1991, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a reported entitled, Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines,1 in response to a congressional request to review evidence about a set of serious adverse events and immunization with pertussis and rubella vaccines. The request originated in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660), whose primary purpose was to establish a federal compensation scheme for persons potentially injured by a vaccine; Section 312 of Public Law 99-660 called for the IOM review. Over the course of its 20-month study, the 11-member interdisciplinary committee constituted by IOM to conduct the review examined altogether 18 adverse events for pertussis vaccine—infantile spasms; hypsarhythmia; aseptic meningitis; acute encephalopathy; chronic neurologic (permanent brain) damage; deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); anaphylaxis, autism; erythema multiforme or other rashes; Guillain-Barré syndrome (polyneuropathy); peripheral mononeuropathy; hemolytic anemia; juvenile diabetes; learning disabilities and hyperactivity; protracted inconsolable crying or screaming; Reye's syndrome; shock and "unusual shock-like state" with hypotonicity, hyporesponsiveness, and short-lived convulsions (usually febrile); and thrombocytopenia—and 4 adverse events for rubella vaccine—acute arthritis; chronic arthritis; radiculoneuritis and other neuropathies; and thrombocytopenic purpura. In conducting its review, the committee recognized that its charge was to focus on questions of causation and not broader topics, such as cost-benefit or risk-benefit analyses of vaccination. This summary begins with a brief history of events leading to the IOM study, then reviews the methods used by the committee to evaluate the evidence, summarizes the committee's conclusions for these adverse events, and offers directions for future investigation of adverse events in connection with widely used health interventions, such as vaccination.

GM food debate

Editorial: <i>Biographical Memoirs</i> , Volume 68

IN the annual report last year of the Royal Society, it was announced that the Pilgrim Trust had agreed to provide 250 guineas a year for six years for an annual lecture to be arranged jointly by the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and to be delivered alternately in London and Washington. It is now announced that the first Pilgrim Trust Lecture will be delivered in London on December 8, and the Royal Society has selected Dr. Irving Langmuir, a director of the Research Laboratory of the General Electric Company, Schenectady, as lecturer. The second lecture is to be delivered on April 24 of next year, and the National Academy of Sciences, to which falls the task of selecting an Englishman as lecturer, has chosen Sir William Bragg. As Sir William emphasized in referring to the Lectures in his presidential address to the Royal Society last November, they present a unique opportunity for direct interchange of thought by leading men of science of the two countries, and the selection of Sir William to give the first lecture in the United States is both a well deserved compliment and a gesture signifying approval of the views which he has expressed as to the functions of these lectures.

Editorial: Biographical Memoirs, Volume 69

An ASGCT Perspective on the National Academies Genome Editing Summit.

US Institute of Medicine studies military burn pits

Vegetative status of children as a territorial bio-indicator of ecological safety

With this issue of Notes and Records of the Royal Society we come to the end of our 75th year of publication. Since our first issue in 1938, the world of periodical publishing in the history of science, technology and medicine has undergone profound changes. Many new journals have been founded,

Report calls for changes in US global AIDS efforts

Allocating Scarce Resources in Disasters: Emergency Department Principles